I personally wouldn't assume an especially close connection between Indo-European and Uralic, as most of the people who try to reconstruct some older proto-language do, but between Indo-European and Austronesian. Look at the pronouns. Most of the proto-languages have a nasal in the 1st person singular, while both Indo-European and Austronesian have a velar. In PIE, it's *egjoh2, in PAN, it's *aku. Then look at the PAN Swadesh list. Doesn't it seem to you that PIE *r corresponds to PAN *l, that PIE *s corresponds to PAN *q and that PIE *d corresponds to PAN *d?*treys (three)-*telu (three)*romk (hand)-*lima (hand/five)*ser (to flow)-*qalur (to flow)*skend (skin)-*qanic (skin)*stembh (to walk)-*qaqay (foot)*smew (smoke)-*qabu (ash)*serw (to watch)-*qalayaw (day)*bheh2s (to talk)-*baqbaq (mouth)*dwoh1 (two)-*dusa (two)*dyews (sky)-*daya (upwards/height/sky)*danu (river)-*danaw (lake)Another potential cognate on the Swadesh list might be PIE *men (to think) and PAN *nemnen (to think), by the metathesis. I'd guess some people here know more about PIE than I do, and I am pretty sure there are some people here who know more about PAN than I do, so what do you think?

all seem very weak to me. The first shows no evidence of the PIE k in the PAN and the only similarity in the second is the initial s/q, none of the others seem to correspond. The third of them would probably need a m/b correspondence which doesn't appear elsewhere.

More generally, the vowels also seem to be unpredictable and some of those have quite big semantic shifts (to watch/day) and the morphologies have no relation whatsoever (and this is usually a better indicator as it's less prone to chance). I'm pretty confident in saying the case for Indo-Austronesian is weaker than Indo-Uralic but, well, that's already not great.

Even beyond the excellent points given by eSOANEM, look at the proposed timelines for both language families. PIE looks to have been in its original homeland around 6000 years ago, and our best bet is that that homeland was somewhere around the north end of the Black Sea.At the same time, 6000 years ago, PAN seems to have been centred in Taiwan, or maybe southern China. That's quite a distance for the purported common ancestor to have covered! On top of all this, it would make sense for this common ancestor to have started between the two locations, which suggests somewhere in Russia or Central Asia, so then we would need to explain how language got there to begin with.

I don't see why that poses a particular difficulty. There were humans, presumably speaking something or another, all over the world (including even the Americas) by as early as a few tens of thousands of years ago. There being someone speaking something somewhere between the PIE urheimat and that of PAN is pretty much a given, as is having enough time for people to spread from there. The only question is whether any specific people spoke a language thereabouts that spread and evolved into PIE and PAN.

FlatAssembler wrote:↶Well, you should keep in mind that, for example, English tooth and German Zahn are cognates, even though, on the surface analysis, only the first phoneme appears to correspond.

Sure, but we can tell they're still cognate on the basis of a much larger number of good correspondences. If you're basing your claim of relation on such poor correspondences you've got a pretty weak hypothesis. To compare, let's look at the same words you use but within PIE:

There's a bit of centum/satem shenanigans going on, but generally the correspondences are much clearer than yours. That's the sort of correspondences you should be aiming for, and bear in mind that, unlike your choice of the words you could "find" correspondences in, these are essentially random choices from the Swadesh list. If there is an Indo-Austronesian family, you should be able to find correspondences for randomly selected Swadesh words reasonably often and that does not appear to be the case.

Your correspondences are of low quality and some rely on roots that cannot be reliably reconstructed. Given this, and the strong grammatical differences, I do not think you have any evidence that cannot be more plausibly explained as coincidence.

Edit: I want to add that your correspondences don't need to be 1-1, in PIE for instance we have Greco-Latin k <-> Indo-Aryan k but also tš/š/s. You should be able to relate a couple of phonemes to a couple in the other languages in a way that works in most cases. You don't need to know what the conditioning is for the various different results, but you should be identify the usual outcomes.

Edit 2: I've also made a spreadsheet with the Swadesh lists of both PIE and PAN in it (but only giving those entries with solid reconstructions in both families). It should allow you to better make comparisons.

Carlington wrote:Even beyond the excellent points given by eSOANEM, look at the proposed timelines for both language families. PIE looks to have been in its original homeland around 6000 years ago, and our best bet is that that homeland was somewhere around the north end of the Black Sea.At the same time, 6000 years ago, PAN seems to have been centred in Taiwan, or maybe southern China. That's quite a distance for the purported common ancestor to have covered! On top of all this, it would make sense for this common ancestor to have started between the two locations, which suggests somewhere in Russia or Central Asia, so then we would need to explain how language got there to begin with.

The obvious answer would be that speakers of a branch of PIE migrated east from the Indian subcontinent into either southern China or Indochina, and this group would be the speakers of the proto-Austronesian language.

It isn't an exact timeline, but doesn't sound too far-fetched

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. –Douglas Adams